I agree we are supposed to have official interpreters of the law. But they are still mere men, and have failed quite a bit and even changed their minds (as an institution) on a number of issues. In the mean time, the other branches of government (the actually elected officials) are supposed to correctly interpret the constitution, and uphold it as they have sworn to do. And if they fail in their duty, it falls to the real power, the people. As I said before, it isn't complicated or tricky, until you want to find something that isn't there, or ignore something that is.

But who/what entity is empowered with interpreting our constitution? If every branch, every politician is empowered with interpreting the constitution as they see it, then why do we even have a supreme court?

let me ask a more pointed question: what's your interpretation of the meaning of the vote of office? When a politician swears to uphold the constitution, would it be as they interpret the Constitution or as the SCOTUS interprets it?

This, IMO, is the fundamental question. Say on a matter of gun law, the local sheriff disagrees with the SCOTUS. Do you think their oath to uphold the Constitution means they are entitled to follow their own interpretation or that of the SCOTUS? And if the former, then why do we even have a supreme court? If the former, then how could we even pretend that we are a nation of laws and not of every man?

But who/what entity is empowered with interpreting our constitution? If every branch, every politician is empowered with interpreting the constitution as they see it, then why do we even have a supreme court?

let me ask a more pointed question: what's your interpretation of the meaning of the vote of office? When a politician swears to uphold the constitution, would it be as they interpret the Constitution or as the SCOTUS interprets it?

This, IMO, is the fundamental question. Say on a matter of gun law, the local sheriff disagrees with the SCOTUS. Do you think their oath to uphold the Constitution means they are entitled to follow their own interpretation or that of the SCOTUS? And if the former, then why do we even have a supreme court? If the former, then how could we even pretend that we are a nation of laws and not of every man?

The SCOTUS should settle disputes in law as outlined in the constitution.

Other offices should defer to it. That said, we have a problem when the court blatantly misinterprets things to the point that even the lay persons begin to notice. At that point, congress should move to impeach. Having primary authority to interpret is not the same as exclusive authority. The best solution is for congress to remove judges when they behave in an immoral manner.

I'm not arguing against the need for the SCOTUS, or its powers and purpose. My point goes to the remediation of judges behaving badly. If congress passes a law limiting religion, the president enforces it, and the SCOTUS upholds it, local and state offices should recognize it for the unlawful and immoral tripe it is and do everything possible to fight it. They shouldn't become Little Eichmanns. The next, slower step is for the populace to vote moral persons into office who can repeal the law and in time the judges will be replaced.

I mean after all, they had courts and politicians that were in charge of deciding for them. They couldn't just interpret anything for themselves. They would no longer be a nation of laws then, right?

And worse yet, how can they have been convicted in international courts when they were clearly upholding the law (or orders) that were given to them. And on the grounds of what? Crimes against humanity? What quaint notions. Surely they should have called it what it was: whoever wins and is in power gets to do anything he likes.

I mean after all, they had courts and politicians that were in charge of deciding for them. They couldn't just interpret anything for themselves. They would no longer be a nation of laws then, right?

Earlier in the thread it was an appeal to false patriotism, and now gun control is being likened to Nazism and Jim Crow. Godwin's law is truly alive and well.

Quote
from msummers80
:

Yes, I acknowledge the untrained can also fail. If you read my posts closely you'd notice I'm not talking about simple failure. I'm talking about people who have become so well educated that they are able to find ways to ignore things they don't like and see things that aren't there.

Ah, bookburning. Rejection of intellectuals and academics was a big part of the Nazi movement.

Quote
from Elmer
:

And it was the same when lawmakers passed laws that restricted the rights of Americans by the color of their skin.

Those who supported the Constitution, would have been bound to resist such laws as well, and many did.

The gun carrying lawmen and militias of the deep south sure didn't have a problem inflicting their brand of justice, both legal and extra-legal, on racial minorities. You might want to read what the Southern Poverty Law Center and other expert civil rights organizations have to say about the Oath Keepers organization and other fringe groups if you truly believe there's a connection between these concepts.

And those lawmakers are still bound by the Constitution they pledged an oath to uphold. Just because they pass an Unconstitutional law, doesn't mean they can also force a requirement of 100% compulsion.

It's up to SCOTUS to decide whether something is constitutional or not. Not you.

The gun carrying lawmen and militias of the deep south sure didn't have a problem inflicting their brand of justice, both legal and extra-legal, on racial minorities. You might want to read what the Southern Poverty Law Center and other expert civil rights organizations have to say about the Oath Keepers organization and other fringe groups if you truly believe there's a connection between these concepts.

Southern Poverty Law Center.

Damn, I just saw an article the other day quoting one of the head people there saying something like they only got into it so they can make lots of money. Oh well, I'll have to settle for these articles instead:

“Given these fawning emails, one would have thought that a head of state was visiting the Justice Department. The SPLC is an attack group, and it is disturbing that it has premier access to our Department of Justice, which is charged with protecting the First Amendment rights of all Americans. And these emails further confirm that politically-correct ‘mandatory’ diversity training programs are a waste of taxpayer money.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Alabama, has long been used by the federal government and the national press corps to paint conservative organizations as “extremists,” “anti-government,” “hate groups,” etc. No sooner would the SPLC issue some attack piece in their newsletter and police agencies all over the country would be issuing bulletins to their officers regurgitating what the SPLC had just spewed out. No private organization has this kind of connection to, and influence over, police agencies nationwide without collaboration with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. Well, now, we have evidence that such a collaboration exists.

Brietbart.com has just released a report by Judicial Watch confirming that the DOJ and the SPLC are intricately tied to the hip.

As I noted yesterday, Floyd Corkins, the guy who planned to kill a bunch of people at the Family Research Council offices in Washington, DC and then rub Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their faces as they died, pleaded guilty yesterday. And he admitted that he picked the FRC and several other targets based on a “Hate Map” at the Southern Poverty Law Center website:

If this sounds familiar to you, it’s exactly what the left and the media (PTR) claimed was the cause behind Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting spree in Arizona two years ago, in which he killed six people and severely wounded Gabby Giffords. Within hours, our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters seized upon a map from Sarah Palin’s website as the cause:

According to leftist logic, this map made Jared Loughner shoot a bunch of people, whether he ever saw it or not. It didn’t matter whether he saw it. It didn’t matter that blaming Palin for it made no sense. It didn’t matter that it was insane. It felt right. So they went with it.

Now we have another maniac and another map. Except this time, the maniac is pointing directly at that map and saying, “That’s why I picked those people.” But since the targets of his thwarted rampage don’t hold the correct opinions, they don’t count.

It's clear there's plenty of folks here that would have imprisoned anyone who said something like this...

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

This Thread is more than 534 days old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.If you still feel it is necessary to make a new reply you may do so.
I am aware that this Thread is rather old but I still want to make a reply.

Found a Deal?
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.

First Time?
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.

Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
user guide
that explains the features of our site.